A "sharp" developer to use with rotary processing

[StoneNYC]

i guess you'll never try it then because i have no need to try something new, find magic bullets
re-tool my system besides, i'm doing my best to use as much NON TOXIC chemistry as i can use.
and caffenol is about as non toxic as it gets ... i can't speak for RO-9 and the others on your list but i am sure it is nasty
( and im not talking about the color chems that you have said you use ) .. and using them in the kitchen at the sink YIKES!

i figured i would post 3 links since it is probably as good as if not better than hc110 and ilfotec, pyro, and anything else you throw at it
download the figital revolution ( steve schaub in vermont ) used caffenol extensively for film he digitized and got images sharp as nails ..

its like a snipe hunt! ...

I'll try it someday...

 

[StoneNYC]

Having a closed mind is a bad thing, you should really try Pyrocat HD, it's a superb developer and very easy to use and fits your criteria.

Ian

I would like to point out, there is a huge difference between being close minded, and analyzing something and deciding that the risk factor is too high for your comfortability level and choosing not to do something, that's like saying someone is close minded for not wanting to go skydiving if they feel that that kind of risk is not something that they would like to take.

I consider myself to be a very open-minded person but I also have done research and learned a lot, and decided that certain things I just not for me, but I don't feel that that makes me close minded.

 

[markbarendt]

..,and the fact after 14 pages nobody has defined sharpness.

Yeah that.

 

[StoneNYC]

Yeah that.

In sorry to not have clarified that better, life gets in the way and I can't get to a computer till late tonight possibly to give examples...

I did define MY sharp as the edge sharpness of grain, where the tone of the grains would fall off quickly rather than blend together so there is a clearer definitive line of edge.

For me that's the sharp I want.

 

[Ian Grant]

Woolly it is Michael, apparent sharpness can be at the expense of fine grain, tonality and good definition.

Ian

 

[markbarendt]

Finally, keep in mind edge effects typically aren't visible without a sizeable enlargement factor, nor are differences in acutance,

The underlying concept you bring up here is an important one that doesn't seem to get much attention.

Switching paper size is essentially the same as swtching film formats.

The whole look changes.

 

[Richard Man]

Every Stone post gets to an epic 50 pages+ because no one reads his requirements. Of course the requirements are so specific that probably only one person can eventually definitively answer them... himself XD

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

This will solve all your problems, Stone.

http://stores.photoformulary.com/fa-1027-film-developer/

Or this one.

http://stores.photoformulary.com/tfx-2-high-definition-developer/

Take your pick!

 

[StoneNYC]

Every Stone post gets to an epic 50 pages+ because no one reads his requirements. Of course the requirements are so specific that probably only one person can eventually definitively answer them... himself XD

That's true, often people just spew what they do regardless of what any OP is asking.

Example: "I live in X country and I'm in an isolated area and can only get foma100 and Rodinal, suggestions for pushing to 1600?, please help"

You'll get stupid answers

You should use xtol and D3200

You should her HC-110 and stand develop with HP5+

My favorite are the morons who suggest stuff like "you should get Plus-X and develop it with home made chemical X that is illegal to use in your country"

Film that isn't produced and some home cocked formula... With no access to old film, and little access to chemistry they still think the poster can go to a chemical supply company like it's walmart... It happens so much it would be laughable if it weren't true.

 

[CatLABS]

That's true, often people just spew what they do regardless of what any OP is asking.

Example: "I live in X country and I'm in an isolated area and can only get foma100 and Rodinal, suggestions for pushing to 1600?, please help"

You'll get stupid answers

You should use xtol and D3200

You should her HC-110 and stand develop with HP5+

My favorite are the morons who suggest stuff like "you should get Plus-X and develop it with home made chemical X that is illegal to use in your country"

Film that isn't produced and some home cocked formula... With no access to old film, and little access to chemistry they still think the poster can go to a chemical supply company like it's walmart... It happens so much it would be laughable if it weren't true.

This sounds like a good description of you StoneNYC...

 

[removed account4]

most people answer all your questions stone,
you change the questions, often times, mid stream
after you reject the answers of everyone who seems
to have oodles more experience than you

... often times your questions could have been answered
without even starting a new thread seeing there are 1.5 million
posts here and chances are a lot of questions have been answered
in the past 11 years.

not suggesting for you to stop starting epic threads, but once in a while do a search ..
its OK to dig up and add to a thread that was started 8 years ago

 

[Dinesh]

5200 posts in a year and a half and apparently all gems!

 

[MattKing]

Given the limitations you outlined,and the fact after 14 pages nobody has defined sharpness,

Well, I sort of half defined it in post 101.

 

[mrred]

After going through this entire thread, it left me wondering why you are not interested in powders? This inclusion would give you lots of sulphate based solutions with enormous economy. I'm not trying to sway you. I am just curious.

 

[nworth]

Kind of, it doesn't contain (pyro)catehol. HC-110 does.

Do not confuse pyrocatechol with pyrogallol, which is pyro. Pyrocatechol is much less toxic (though still somewhat toxic), and the stain it produces is a bit different. It is more like hydroquinone, though far from the same.

 

[nworth]

The larger the format the harder it is to have sharp images.
That is not to say they cant be sharp, but in most circumstances the smaller the format the sharper the image will be. focal length is just one reason of many.

Not really. In general, there is no substitute for square inches when it comes to sharpness. Depth of field is a matter of overall magnification, so it should not matter. (Depth of field tables are misleading, since different rules are used for for different tables, and most are not referenced to set viewing conditions.) With a view camera (or a tilt-shift lens) you can even sometimes compensate for limited depth of field. Camera support for larger formats is a real issue; heavy weight and large sizes can make things difficult, especially in the wind. Lenses do have to cover a bigger area, but most lenses for 120 size cameras are comparable in absolute sharpness to those for 35mm, and lenses for 4X5 and 5X7 are not far behind; lenses for 8X10 still produce better full-frame images than those for 4X5. In general, for a given print size 120 will be a lot sharper than 35mm, and large format will be sharper than 120.

 

[Sirius Glass]

After going through this entire thread, it left me wondering why you are not interested in powders? This inclusion would give you lots of sulphate based solutions with enormous economy. I'm not trying to sway you. I am just curious.

When you mention using powders the OP wants to run and take a powder, if you get my drift.

 

[CatLABS]

Not really. In general, there is no substitute for square inches when it comes to sharpness. Depth of field is a matter of overall magnification, so it should not matter. (Depth of field tables are misleading, since different rules are used for for different tables, and most are not referenced to set viewing conditions.) With a view camera (or a tilt-shift lens) you can even sometimes compensate for limited depth of field. Camera support for larger formats is a real issue; heavy weight and large sizes can make things difficult, especially in the wind. Lenses do have to cover a bigger area, but most lenses for 120 size cameras are comparable in absolute sharpness to those for 35mm, and lenses for 4X5 and 5X7 are not far behind; lenses for 8X10 still produce better full-frame images than those for 4X5. In general, for a given print size 120 will be a lot sharper than 35mm, and large format will be sharper than 120.

Actually - resolution (which is what you are talking about) has nothing to do with sharpness.
A large, yet blurry negative, while it could be enlarged quite a bit before you get to see the grain structure on the print break down, will still be blurry.
In the studio, there are ways to overcome the depth of field issues, as you noted, however, that does not negate the fact that the longer the focal length, the smaller the depth of field. That is not a matter of reading a table, its a matter of physics. While this is not absolute, in most cases, focal length tends to get longer, the larger to format, due to the respective angle of view.

The quality of the lenses is not in question here at all, and it may very well be that some 4X5 lenses have by far better line per MM then some MF or other lenses, but that will not help increase the depth of field, or reduce camera movement.

 

[mrred]

When you mention using powders the OP wants to run and take a powder, if you get my drift.

I get your drift, even if it is misplaced. I just wanted to know if there was a specific reason why.

 

[removed account4]

....

 

[Sirius Glass]

I get your drift, even if it is misplaced. I just wanted to know if there was a specific reason why.

That was covered in post #13.

 

[Roger Cole]

most people answer all your questions stone,
you change the questions, often times, mid stream
after you reject the answers of everyone who seems
to have oodles more experience than you

... often times your questions could have been answered
without even starting a new thread seeing there are 1.5 million
posts here and chances are a lot of questions have been answered
in the past 11 years.

not suggesting for you to stop starting epic threads, but once in a while do a search ..
its OK to dig up and add to a thread that was started 8 years ago

Often when I see this kind of pattern the person is not looking for information or advice, but rather for confirmation or some sort of "permission" to go ahead and do what they've already decided on.

I'm not saying this is the case with Stone. He just seems to have such specific requirements and criteria that threads turn into a "but why not powders?" or "why are you so opposed to pyro?" or whatever rather than telling him what he's asking. And when people DO tell him what he's asking, the thread continues anyway.

Bottom line - you aren't likely to get the kind of exagerated edge effects you get with Rodinal and stand or minimal agitation using any developer with rotary agitation. But these have little to do with fine detail anyway and may even obscure it. Pretty much any normal developer is capable of good results with rotary processing as I confirmed some over a decade ago when I first got my Jobo. For what he wants, HC-110 or Ilfotec HC are probably going to be about as good as it gets.

My advice, and double your money back if not satisfied, "these differences in developers are so subtle that, once you get your process with any of them dialed in, none are going to make or break a photography. Get yourself some HC-110 or Ilfotec HC, stop wanking around on the forums and start shooting and processing."

I should take my own advice more too.

 

[StoneNYC]

That was covered in post #13.

Thank you...

 

[StoneNYC]

Often when I see this kind of pattern the person is not looking for information or advice, but rather for confirmation or some sort of "permission" to go ahead and do what they've already decided on.

I'm not saying this is the case with Stone. He just seems to have such specific requirements and criteria that threads turn into a "but why not powders?" or "why are you so opposed to pyro?" or whatever rather than telling him what he's asking. And when people DO tell him what he's asking, the thread continues anyway.

Bottom line - you aren't likely to get the kind of exagerated edge effects you get with Rodinal and stand or minimal agitation using any developer with rotary agitation. But these have little to do with fine detail anyway and may even obscure it. Pretty much any normal developer is capable of good results with rotary processing as I confirmed some over a decade ago when I first got my Jobo. For what he wants, HC-110 or Ilfotec HC are probably going to be about as good as it gets.

My advice, and double your money back if not satisfied, "these differences in developers are so subtle that, once you get your process with any of them dialed in, none are going to make or break a photography. Get yourself some HC-110 or Ilfotec HC, stop wanking around on the forums and start shooting and processing."

I should take my own advice more too.

Yea part of why my posts get long is people insist on asking why I'm doing something instead of being silent or actually providing the info in asking for.

The reason I made this post was because I'm not familiar with every developer out there in the world, but I would think that there would be a few developers that would be liquid that maybe someone might suggest that haven't been mentioned in normal posts, sure I know about Rodinal, HC-110, Tmax, DD-X, Ilfsol 3... But maybe there are more out there that specifically do well with sharp edge effects in rotary. Something I've never heard of that comes in liquid form, is safe, and lower in toxins, won't give me Parkinson's if I make a mistake in my kitchen, and is less expensive than DD-X.

Anyway I've got to shoot something before I try DD-X at a lower dilution.

I do thank those that were intelligent enough to read my question and answer within the given guidelines. Much appreciated.

 

[Roger Cole]

Stone, I haven't used DD-X but I understand it's similar to T-Max developer and I've been using that since the 90s, both the regular and RS versions. In case (and I realize this is a very big IF) it is like T-Max in this regard, my observation on different dilutions: if time and temperature are adjusted to get the same contrast there is little if any difference from the label 1+4 up to 1+6, and not much at 1+7. I am not a big fan of the 1+9 dilution. It's not "bad" but I don't like the midtones as much which seem a bit depressed to me at that dilution. I tend to use it at 1+5 for the times given for 1+4, or sometimes 1+6 with a bit more time. It really doesn't make much difference.

For T-Max I'd say dilute it further for economy, at least to 1+6 or maybe 1+7, but not to expect radically different results once you dial in your times. DD-X may be similar but you'll have to try to see.